


The Only Good Leader or the internal logic of TLK

by kingwellsjaha



Category: The Last Kingdom (TV)
Genre: (i wouldn't post something like this on ao3 but the meta is 3k long), Meta Post, Other, and the way the narrative justifies itself, i honestly do not know how to tag this properly so i will not even try, this examines the writing of TLK
Language: English
Status: Completed
Published: 2020-12-26
Updated: 2020-12-26
Packaged: 2021-03-11 00:27:41
Rating: Not Rated
Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply
Chapters: 1
Words: 3,199
Publisher: archiveofourown.org
Story URL: https://archiveofourown.org/works/28336164
Author URL: https://archiveofourown.org/users/kingwellsjaha/pseuds/kingwellsjaha
Summary: In this meta piece, I try and examine how the narrative positions its main character Uhtred of Bebbanburg within the plot, looking at how it justifies his actions by looking at him in contrast to the antagonists of the show. I argue that a logic system/pattern underlies TLK in which Uhtred is not only presented as a good leader, but as the only good leader, and how that at times limits Uhtred's character and the themes the show tries to engage with.Or: I have a lot of feelings on the writing of TLK and I think I might finally have found an answer as to why it bothers me at times.
Kudos: 3





	The Only Good Leader or the internal logic of TLK

**Author's Note:**

> i need to thank a lot of people for just bearing with me, but most of all tumblr user, @raincityruckus, @wildwren (tumblr name and ao3 name) and @irisdouglasiana (@ivarthebadbitch on tumblr).
> 
> raincityruckus gave me an amazing long reply through which I learnt a lot and was able to formulate my initial points better.
> 
> irisdouglasiana, with her always sharp and concise commentary, which inspires me to do better in regards to my own writing.
> 
> and last @wildwren for bearing with me, adding commentary and also proofreading this.
> 
> this was initially meant to be only posted on tumblr, which explains why i talk about "posts". i decided to post it on there because i wanted to archive it.

After some consideration and because of the amazing detailed reply by @raincityruckus, which can be read in full [ here ](https://raincityruckus.tumblr.com/post/638325792129138688/i-saw-your-post-about-uhtred-contradicting-the) , I attempt to make another meta post about the writing of The Last Kingdom and its main protagonist Uhtred. I think it’s safe to say that I misused ideology as a term. It does not really encompass what I originally wanted to say. If you want to check it out regardless [ here ](https://volvaaslaug.tumblr.com/post/638292100988977152/i-saw-your-post-about-uhtred-contradicting-the) is the link.

@ivarthebadbitch in her addition to my original meta post, gave a great definition of ideology and what she believes the show’s ideology to be about. I think she manages to summarize far better (and more nuanced) what I was trying to say, so I would recommend checking that reply out [ here ](https://ivarthebadbitch.tumblr.com/post/638337452069814272/i-saw-your-post-about-uhtred-contradicting-the).

With her suggestions, I will still mention what I consider to be the underlying assumptions (read: ideology) of the show, but I will focus far more on the _themes_ of TLK and the underlying _logic_ that comes through its assumptions and how these two influence each other.

Before I can even start, I have to address something which was brought up by the tags of the reblogs. People criticized me for saying that the show is about the formation of England. They instead countered that The Last Kingdom is about Uhtred. I do not see how these two things contradict each other. The show is about the formation of England told from the perspective of Uhtred of Bebbanburg, one of its key players. It’s not just a mere backdrop to Uhtred’s story, **the formation of England IS Uhtred’s story**. He plays a key role in every important battle, he has become king/queen maker three times now, and most likely will for a fourth time with Aethelstan later on. This is furthered by the fact that Uhtred himself represents the rising conflicts of the formation, being the literal embodiment of the clash between the Danes and the Saxons through his heritage. I understand that me saying “It is about Alfred and his children,” could imply that I see them as the main protagonists, I do not. I think Alfred and Edward are deuteragonist, Alfred more so than Edward (and I will come back to them later), but for all intents and purposes Uhtred is the protagonist of The Last Kingdom and The Last Kingdom is about the formation of England.

Why do I focus on that again? Because the formation of England is one of the driving elements when it comes to determining who is an antagonist and who is not and even further functions at times as a guidepoint to who is morally justified and who is not. One more thing before I continue: this is about the writing and internal logic of the show. I understand that in my last post I was very frustrated and I am sorry that this could be read as an attack on Uhtred, as a character. I am not trying to to determine in this post if Uhtred actually is a bad person or a bad character, what I am trying to show is how the narrative engages with him by pushing onto him a logic system which in my opinion confines and limits his character and the themes the show tries to engage with.This is not an attack on the character, but a criticism on the writing, and I will try my best to make it sound that way, so that no one will feel like they need to defend their favourite character from slander.

Alright, with that out of the way, let’s dive into it. I will talk about @raincityruckus’ reply later and start with the baseline assumptions that @ivarthebadbitch identified in her reply because I think she is correct.

**Assumption 1:**

> “The first assumption is that “England” is a real and meaningful entity. At the end of the story, the nation of England _must_ exist because this is, you know, history or whatever. **Every nation needs its own myth to justify its existence**. So I would say that at its core, TLK is presenting us with a founding myth of England as this amalgamation of Saxon and Danish cultures, embodied by Uhtred. I don’t think Uhtred is presented as perfect (though as you say, he’s right about most things), but I think he’s meant to combine the best of both worlds, so to speak.” (bolding mine)

This is important in so far that everyone who stands against England or undermines it will turn into an antagonist at some point.

(A side note: it’s interesting to see how Uhtred’s position in relation to England defines him. Again and again, he is forced to participate in it, even if he does not want to, and as a consequence, he faces a lot of personal sacrifices. When he turns his back on Alfred in Season Three, he gains a bad conscience through Leofric’s ghost haunting him and only stays with the Danes for an episode before breaking with them because of Aethelflaed. Even if he only does it because of his personal connection and promise to her, it’s interesting to see how the narrative again and again pulls Uhtred towards England in one way or another.) 

Now there are antagonists that do not stand clearly in relationship to the founding myth and could be interpreted as the antagonists that are there because this is Uhtred’s story: Kjartan, Aelfric, Wihtgar and Eadred. This is true, I would like to point out that while these characters are not in direct relationship to England, they also are not actively supporting England. (As a minor point brought forward by @wildwren: it’s interesting to look at the importance of these villains. If this truly was just the show about Uhtred’s personal life with the formation of England being the backdrop one would expect Aelfric to play a bigger role as a villain in it.)

Now we have in general two kinds of antagonists:

The Danes start off as fairly neutral and are not presented as overtly evil. Especially in Season One, they seem to live by rules different from the Saxons and while for example Ubba is an antagonist, it’s clear from Uhtred’s insistence on a proper burial that he respects him. This kind of dwindles out by Season Three. With Ragnar’s death, the remaining Danes are not only all antagonists, they are also all morally reprehensible: bloodthirsty, selfish, brutal. Only with the emergence of Perm Guy by the end of Season Four, we get a sort-of antagonist, who is again reasonable, and repeating the point from the original post: It’s interesting to note that Perm Guy makes a conscience departure from the Danes that were before him, which means a) Alfred was right, when he said it’s impossible to make peace with the Danes because they do not value peace and b) that these men were all driven by some sort of selfish ambition, which is part of another assumption made within the show. There is good ambition, which serves a higher purpose, for example Alfred’s ambitions for England, and there is bad self ambition, for example Aethelwold’s ambitions for taking England.

The Saxon villains are generally not only antagonists, they are more morally reprehensible. They are presented as usually weak, pathetic and selfish. They do not only actively harm people, they also generally present a threat to England through their incompetence, which leads us to another assumption that @ivarthebadbitch talks about.

**Assumption 2:**

> "The second assumption is, helpfully, made explicit by Alfred just before he dies at the end of season 3: “my last act, for my God, must be to ensure that good men hold power.” Again, this is an idea that _seems_ obvious–of course we want good people to be in charge!–but raises more questions than answers, like what makes someone a “good man,” what are acceptable uses of power, so on and so forth. "

And with that assumption I can finally stop simply rehashing what I stated in my original post. (I hope I made a few things more clear and was more precise this time) and finally come to @raincityruckus’s response and my general thesis for this essay.

Now with the second assumption, it’s pretty obvious that Uhtred is the good man, Alfred talks about, (and @raincityruckus gave a good explanation as to what makes him good.) I would propose a third assumption: Not only is Uhtred a good man who should be in charge, he is the best leader to help with the formation of England. And I will now go further and state that he is the ONLY leader who can help with the formation of England. There is no other option presented by the narrative.

(Side Note: I have to say, I think one could argue that Aethelflaed also is in some way this capable leader, at least in the beginning of Season Four when she assembles the armies against Cnut and opposes Edward together with her mother, but I have to say, Uhtred is still the tipping point here by tricking Cnut into thinking that his son is dead. His leadership skills are fundamental in winning that fight and the Mercian succession is also resolved by Uhtred making the decision and not her.)

@raincityruckus is right with pointing out the differences between Aethelwold and Uhtred. Aethelwold is not a good leader, he is a coward and what I in general dub a Saxon Failson (in line with Young Odda, Aethelred and Eardwulf). She is also right in pointing out that Uhtred reacts to violence instead of instigating it most of the time. It’s important here to point out that this is a conscious decision that the narrative makes. It does put him in situations where he has to defend himself instead of attacking first. So while I agree that Uhtred kind of faces consequences for attacking Bebbanburg (in the sense that it fails and he loses his father figure), it’s interesting to note that Wihtgar does not offer Uhtred peace, which would have created an interesting conundrum with his quest for Bebbanburg and him being a man that keeps his word, but this cannot happen because then Uhtred would have had to work from a position where he might be on the offense. Even if one could say that the Bebbanburg storyline of s4 punishes Uhtred for lashing out, it needs to make Wihtgar more morally reprehensible and evil in comparison, so that Uhtred still has a narrative approved reason for regaining Bebbanburg in the next season.

And I think this is where I arrive at a sort of internal “logic” of the show that I have been noticing. Because there is no other leader and because Uhtred has to be a good man who leads--even if he is as the narrative acknowledges at times not perfect--he has to be put constantly into situations where he reacts to violence and furthermore none of the antagonists that face him within the Saxon camp can challenge him or even propose an alternative concept to the England that Alfred and Uhtred are actively creating. Aethelwold needs to be a bad leader, selfish and incapable, with his alliance with the Danes clearly meaning doom for England if Aethelwold would win. Aethelred and Young Odda both cannot have an alternative successful strategy to the one that Uhtred is proposing.

@raincityruckus is right, when she says that Uhtred faces consequences for lashing out in Season One and leaving with Leofric to Cornwall, it is his low point, but it is also interesting to note that Alfred’s low point happens right after (costing Alfred damn nearly everything), basically resolving the conflict between the two because Alfred needs Uhtred now more than ever (and whatever Uhtred had lost by going to Cornwall, is now lost to the Danes.)

When Uhtred kills the two priests, he is always in a bad emotional state, understandably so, and both times faces consequences. However, it is important to note that Alfred’s final character arc makes him apologize for that to Uhtred, admitting that he has treated him wrongly.

I think the Attack on Bebbanburg in Season Four actually is the first time that Uhtred faces consequences and openly stated that he took a lesson from that and I actually liked that. It has never happened this openly before.

(Side Note: However, I want to point out something @wildwren talked to me about, Uhtred learning a lesson from the Attack on Bebbanburg rings a bit hollow because it is not a development we see him actively go through. After Bebbanburg, Uhtred feels vulnerable and uncertain what to do, this does not lead to him being insecure or questioning himself throughout the Mercian succession arc, he continues to lead throughout that arc, believing his decision making to be correct and just without consulting anyone (namely Aethelflaed). There is no development, by episode 4.09 he has simply arrived at the conclusion that he cannot react hastly and has to be more cautious, which then conveniently is good for the struggle that lies ahead.)

I also want to make a short detour and point out two instances in which I think the narrative brushes over potential moral conundrums (Here a quick note again, this is not a post trying to reason that Uhtred actually is a bad person or a bad character, what I am trying to show is how the narrative engages with him by pushing onto him a logic system which in my opinion confines and limits his character.)

**First conundrum: Skade**

Skade is introduced as this clearly evil, bloodthirsty character and she remains one-dimensional in that way. What’s interesting about her is her power, or her claim to power. She curses Uhtred in the first episode and the question arises if that curse has any power. (In general the show is rather ambiguous when it comes to magic, and I would argue that compared to Iseult, Skade’s power arises more through her sexuality than her abilities as a seer. The men gain the power she claims to have by being her lover.) By episode seven, Uhtred has found out that he has to kill her in a specific manner to free himself of the curse and that he does. As I stated, the narrative remains ambiguous as to whether Skade actually has these powers, and it is actually brought up in a discussion within the show. What’s safe to say is that Uhtred genuinely believes himself to be cursed. Now, reactionary or not, is that a good enough reason for him to kill her? Is it a weird acknowledgement of the power a woman in this society had? Is it a tragedy then that the belief in her powers is also what kills her? The narrative concludes by making Osferth, the character that did not believe in the curse, outright state that it was okay for Uhtred to kill Skade because she was with the devil and later on Finan adds that she was the devil. This is the last word spoken of her and she is never mentioned again. There are no consequences for Uhtred for killing her. So he is right in doing so.

(Side Note: I know that Skade is a bad character that has killed and tortured a lot of people, but that is not the reason why Uhtred drowns her in the lake. It’s not in reaction to that.)

**Second conundrum: Cnut’s sons**

In Season Four Uhtred kidnaps Cnut’s sons to use them as bait for Cnut. After he is finished with them he releases them into the woods. The boys are never to be seen again. The narrative portrays this as a sort of kindness on Uhtred’s part and does not reflect that he releases two children around the age of ten into a warzone which will grow continuously more hostile towards them as the season progresses, through the emergence of more and more Saxon troops and the start of a plague. In a sense this action has to be done to save Mercia/England and that is the end of it.

I bring forth both instances to show how the narrative justifies Uhtred’s actions. In the case of Cnut’s sons again what @raincityruckus brought forth applies: Uhtred is not bloodthirsty, he does not mean to harm Cnut’s sons. It is just a thing that needs to be done. (This is especially interesting because it is contrasted with Wihtgar, who not only wants to kill Uhtred’s son, but also wants Uhtred to watch).

Skade is a more complicated example. On a thematically level, her powers are questioned and discussed by the Coccham Squad. The way the Danish men interact with her also always makes you wonder if she really is the one in charge of the men who try to claim her, especially when they knock her out and hurl her away. This poses a lot of interesting questions throughout the narrative, like “Do women really hold power within Danish society? And what does that power look like?” or “What is Skade’s true power?”. Because of its internal logic, however, the show cannot engage with that properly by the end. The only question that is answered by her death is “Was Uhtred justified in killing her?” and the answer is a pretty clear “Yes”. I argue that this is because the narrative has confined Uhtred into this logic system, which then in turn flattens any thematic exploration the show is trying to engage in.

Let me give you another (and last example) of this: Uhtred in connection to Alfred and Edward. Now I think it can be argued that Alfred and Edward are deuteragonists to Uhtred. They have their own clear character arcs throughout the seasons. The struggles, they are facing, can be swiftly summarized by “Heavy lies the crown.” In general they face a lot of moral decisions on how to lead and how to further England. They are both flawed, complicated characters, with Edward being of course even heavier in flaws than Alfred. The problem for me is that all of their moral struggles when it comes to leading England within the logic and the assumptions of the show can only be answered with “Listen to Uhtred.” Even in the end of Season 2 when Alfred potentially faces one of the most complicated moral problems the show poses, the answer to it, unbeknownst to him (and in that instance Uhtred as well), is Uhtred.

 **So to summarize:** As I tried to demonstrate there is a certain logic underlying the show in which Uhtred has to be represented as the only viable leader for the formation of England, and because of that, he always has to be put in a reactionary position, with no other character acting as a capable challenger to that title. Therefore, Uhtred’s character is never challenged in an interesting way and never fully explored. Furthermore, the internal logic of the show flattens the very themes that it is trying to explore, such as leadership (Alfred and Edward), nationality (Alfred and Edward) and power structures (Skade), and often simplifies the moral system into “for Uhtred” or “against Uhtred”.

**Author's Note:**

> honestly, a meta post is meant to be discussed and criticised. i was trying to make this air tight, but i think that is impossible. instead i hope that i conveyed my points well. and just to reiterate: it is not wrong to feel for uhtred or to like him or to root for him, this is not a critique of him on a personal level. i don't even want to say that the writing needs to change to accommodate my tastes, i am just trying to find the reason why i found tlk at times disappointing to not engaging and here it is. if you found it very engaging that is fine, i am genuinely happy for you.
> 
> two small notes and then i am done: i still think about how aethelflaed figures into it all. and looking at it now i think maybe "system" is a problematic term, what i tried to find is a "pattern" in which the show has worked in until now and out of which it can not break out.


End file.
